Dec 2019 Watchtower - Two Witness Rule

The Watchtower has attempted to address their two witness rule and the case of the raped woman in a field found at Deuteronomy 22:25-27

All the tireless work that so many ex JWs and concerned worldly people have done by phone calls, cart crashes, demonstrating at assemblies, questioning JWs and so on, is paying off. It's not the doting JWs that have been questioning the two witness rule, it's apostates.

This is a "Question from Reader" in the December, 2019 Watchtower

The Bible says that at least two witnesses are needed to establish a matter. (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16; 1 Tim. 5:19) But under the Law, if a man raped an engaged girl “in the field” and she screamed, she was innocent of adultery and he was not. Given that others did not witness the rape, why was she innocent while he was guilty?

We all know that these aren't actual questions from readers and the Watchtower phrases these as they wish.

Note the 'but' used. It signifies an acceptance that there appears to be an exception to the two witness rule. This is concreted by the next statement which says specifically "that others did not witness the rape"

There were not two witnesses to the rape which occurred in the field and both the male and female were judged.

The account at Deuteronomy 22:25-27 is not primarily about proving the man’s guilt, because that was acknowledged. This law focused on establishing the woman’s innocence. Note the context.

Is that really the case? The laws establish either the punishment where the male or female were guilty or not and on what basis they would be either guilty or not. Yet the Watchtower manages to turn this fact around and focus on the female.

I wonder why they are doing that? I think it is to divert the readers attention from what is really the issue - that there were not two witnesses.

The preceding verses speak of a man who had sex with an engaged woman “in the city.” In doing that, he was guilty of adultery, since the engaged woman was viewed as married. What about the woman? “She did not scream in the city.” If she had done so, others would certainly have heard her and would have defended her. But she did not scream. Thus, she was sharing in the adultery, so both were judged guilty.​—Deut. 22:23, 24.

So immediately the Watchtower has contradicted itself by demonstrating how in this scenario the primary focus of the law was to find someone either guilty or innocent.

The Law next outlined a different situation: “If, however, the man happened to meet the engaged girl in the field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her is to die by himself, and you must do nothing to the girl. The girl has not committed a sin deserving of death. This case is the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him. For he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.”​—Deut. 22:25-27.In that case, the woman was given the benefit of the doubt. In what sense? It was assumed that she “screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.” So she was not committing adultery. The man, however, was guilty of rape and adultery because he “overpowered her and lay down with her,” the engaged woman.

Hence, even though this law focused on the woman’s innocence, the account rightly described the man as guilty of rape and adultery. We can be confident that the judges would “investigate the matter thoroughly” and render a decision in line with the standard that God had set out plainly and repeatedly.​—Deut. 13:14; 17:4; Ex. 20:14.

Here again, we see the Watchtower claiming that these versus focus on the woman's innocence but it's not the case.

They state that the Judges thoroughly investigated matters. They would have JWs believe that Elders do so today but they are ill equipped and in no position to be able to do so today. That is why accusations need to be handled by the higher authorities in order to be able to claim that matters have been investigated as thoroughly as they can be.

I find the whole article to be dishonest and contradictory and doesn't address the question asked.

All I can make of it is that they are attempting to leave an impression in the minds of JWs that Deuteronomy 22 has nothing to do with 'two witnesses' and that Elders thoroughly investigate matters regardless.

To help make things clearer as to the Watchtower's stand on Deuteronomy 22 it helps to go back to the Letter that G Jackson signed and sent to the ARC, the Watchtower said

3: Exp!anation of Deuteronomy 12:25-27
15. At TJ5970-15974, Counsel Assisting suggested that the requirement of at least two witnesses in
relation to cases of sexual abuse had no proper Scriptural foundation, relying upon references to
Deuteronomy 22:25-27 to support this proposition.

16. While these verses might appear to be an exception to the Scriptural requirement that there be at
least two witnesses to establish a matter, that is not a correct reading of the passages.

17. Five chapters earlier, at Deuteronomy 17:6, the Mosaic Law clearly states without exception:
"On the testimony of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die should be put to death. He
must not be put to death on the testimony of one witness."
And in Deuteronomy chapter 19, verse 15, it says:
"No single witness may convict another for any error or any sin that he may commit. On the testimony of
two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses the matter should be established. "

18. It is important to note that the two contrasting situations in verses 23 to 27 of Deuteronomy
chapter 22 do not deal with proving whether the man is guilty in either situation. His guilt is
assumed in both instances. In saying that he:
"happened to meet her in the city and lay down with her"
or he:
"happened to meet the engaged girl in the.field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her ".
in both instances, the man had already been proved guilty and worthy of death, this being
determined by proper procedure earlier in the judges' inquiry. But the question at this point
before the judges (having established that improper sexual relations had occurred between the
man and the woman) was whether the engaged woman had been guilty of immorality or was a
victim of rape. This is a different issue, although related, to establishing the man 's guilt. 19. The elders had guidance in determining if any guilt should be charged to her. In the second
instance (verse 27), the woman would not die,
"for he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to
rescue her".
Such a cry for help might be admitted by her assailant, which would confirm her claimed
innocence. On the other hand, if the assailant denied that the woman had screamed for help, the
judges would not have a basis for refusing her claim, since, in effect, it would be her word
against his and there was no one nearby either to rescue her or to serve as a witness one way or
the other as to her scream for help. Thus, the judges would not have a basis for taking any
action against her because any claim contrary to her professed innocence could not be
established by two or more witnesses. The woman, as claimed, would be judged innocent. In
that case (verses 25 and 26),
"the man who lay down with her is to die by himself. and you must do nothing to the girl. "
This is because (verses 26 and 27):
"{t}he girl has not committed a sin deserving of death. This case is the same as when a man
attacks his f ellow man and murders him. For he happened to meet her in the field, and the
engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her. " 20. So it is not as though the woman at this point in the inquiry is seeking to prove the man's guilt
and finds herself as the only witness against him. However, it is of interest that the raping of a
woman is said to be "the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him."
(Deuteronomy 22:26) Thus, the crime of rape is made parallel to murder, equated not only as to
reprehensibility but also evidently as to being established by the same Scriptural rules of
evidence, which included having the testimony of two witnesses (Numbers 35:30).

21. Understandably, there is concern in child abuse situations because there is seldom an additional
eyewitness to such a crime. Even in those circumstances, the Christian congregation does not
ignore the accusation. I refer the Royal Commission to the testimony of Mr Rodney Spinks of
the Service Department in which he set out the further protective steps which are taken
following an allegation. In addition, in those jurisdictions with mandatory reporting, elders
would be required to report accusations regardless of the number of eyewitnesses.

Here again, the Watchtower says

Thus, the judges would not have a basis for taking any action against her because any claim contrary to her professed innocence could not be established by two or more witnesses. The woman, as claimed, would be judged innocent. In that case (verses 25 and 26),

But apparently, the mans guilt could be established even though there was a definite lack of two or more witnesses.

The scream thing presents problems. What if the rapist gagged her and she couldn't scream.

Does the scream have to be heard to be a viable "excuse"?

What if sheer terror rendered her mute?

Rape is a crime of violence fueled by anger and in many cases misogyny. The Deuteronomy verses seem to lean to more of an overly aggressive male with a female unsure or frightened...it was a different culture altogether. Rapes rarely have eyewitnesses but these days proof positive can be medically obtained. So...imho....using these verses to justfy 2 witnesses is pretty flimsy.

You mean the standard of which the ancient Hebrews devised for their
civilization, wouldn't that be the actual " Truth " to the matter.

It is tragic isn't it. This misogynist text is actually all about whether the property (engaged woman) has been stolen or not. If she was not engaged the man was compelled to take ownership as she was now damaged goods. It was only in the case of an engaged woman being assaulted that punishment was deemed fitting. (Vss 28,29) Just how anyone living today could believe this is a high moral code is beyond me.

In Biblical times, women were property (her father's or her husband's).

Read in that context, it's way easier to understand the true underlying context of Deuteronomy's admonitions...

...for a man to have sex with a woman who wasn't his wife was to - essentially - commit vandalism or theft, regardless of whatever degree of violence or coercion was involved.

...

Of course, in the modern world (and by any reasonable ethical standard), human beings are not fucking property...

...so Biblical literalists and apologists engage in almost ridiculous degrees of semantic pretzel-twisting and re-interpretation trying to justify said admonitions, and then try to apply them to situations that don't even remotely compare (often to simply avoid looking like objectively horrible people, IMO).